5 ms·

While I enjoy reading some of the political reporting on Brexit on the guardian, they are amongst the least balanced newspapers on general societal and cultural

While I enjoy reading some of the political reporting on Brexit on the guardian, they are amongst the least balanced newspapers on general societal and cultural issues.

gameswithgo 7y ago
what does balanced mean to people who comment on the lack of balance in the news? giving equal weight and time to all viewpoints? that seems to be a crazy thing to expect since soke viewpoints are totally bonkers (example: flat earthers). perhaps a better way to critique would be to specify exactly what viewpoint you feel is being ignored or treated unfairly and justify that claim. otherwise “not balanced” comes across like a thought terminating meme, with no information attached.
- high_derivative 7y ago
  It means they have fully subscribed to an intersectional victim culture that is obsessed with race, identity and oppression. It means giving platform to e.g. journalists inciting personal campaigns against e.g. Tim Hunt or whoever is the wrong-thinker of the hour. Outrage sells so this is a rational strategy for them, it is just surprising they have a better reputation than, say, Fox News.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >what does balanced mean to people who comment on the lack of balance in the news? giving equal weight and time to all viewpoints? Covering all _major_ viewpoints with decency, and not demonizing the ones they disagree with. Here's a trick impartial outlets use all the time, for example: a favorite politician is presented in nice flattering photographs, a politician they don't like is presented in unflattering photographs, selected to make them look evil, etc. (Now extend this to coverage of their actions inside the articles).
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    Right, so what constitutes a major viewpoint? Let's say that a popular politician believes that vaccines cause autism. In order to be impartial, does the news outlet now have to give equal weight to people who believe in a lie? Or what if what the majority believes is actually abhorrent? Like for example, let's say the majority believe (or choose to simply ignore) that it's a good thing to put a bunch of ethnic minorities in concentration camps. Whether it's due to propaganda or threats from the government. In this hypothetical example, let's call these people Uyghurs. Is the impartial outlet supposed to give equal consideration to both sides? Maybe bring up a few positives of concentration camps?
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >Let's say that a popular politician believes that vaccines cause autism. In order to be impartial, does the news outlet now have to give equal weight to people who believe in a lie? The political matters news outlets cover are not confined to scientific issues (like vaccines) that can be settled by some expert consensus. They can dismiss such claims easily, and those are not the point anyway. Nor are most political issues as clear cut as putting minorities in "concentration camps" -- that's a contrived example, making sound like anything not approved by the Guardian amounts to Hitler (or, in this case, Chinese state oppression -- though even this story might have more nuance than what we're getting). The most important political issues cannot be classified as "a lie", they are just different ways of thinking of what's good, beneficial, important short or long term, etc. And of course, different interests, to different segments of the population, or to different countries, cultures, etc. Examples? The arguments pro or against social democracy or liberalism. The arguments pro or against immigration. Or pro or against EU governance. Or pro or against certain fiscal policies. Or pro or against surveillance. Or pro or against privacy. Or pro or against this or that war or intervention or enemy du jour. Or pro or against this or that technology. Or pro or against this or that education reform. Or pro or against Assange. And so on... Yet those nuanced things are still presented as one side is the "good side" and the other is either evil or deluded or a liar.
      - fzeroracer 7y ago
        There is zero website, news team or otherwise that adheres to your nigh-impossible lofty ideals of 'neutrality'. Every single site is going to have some bias in one direction or another. For example, EFF is obviously going to be biased against anything that takes away privacy. The Guardian is going to be more left leaning than The Daily Mail and so forth. Can you name me a single example of a website behaving according to the rules that you've laid down?
- dominotw 7y ago
  > example: flat earthers why did you do this. Saying earth is flat is not an "example" equivalent to saying immigration hurts me and my family.
- klagermkii 7y ago
  When I say "balanced news", I don't mind if the media has a clear bias on a topic which shines through. It's fine if there is a right side, and they come down firmly on that side. The issue comes when it feels like they're leaving out information or a perspective which would be harmful to their case. Basically if I read something in the news and after reading it I felt like the story made it look like one side was obviously correct, but then I go and look up more sources or more information and I will feel like there's a lot more nuance to it or my opinion even reverses, then I feel like there's been a huge failure in the media and I call that "not balanced". It feels like they strawman the opinions they disagree with while pulling in the best representatives and sources for the positions they agree with.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  > what does balanced mean to people who comment on the lack of balance in the news? If this is an honest question, does that mean you don't actually know? It's not that hard. Just find out and present the facts even handedly. Make an attempt at see things from the different perspectives. Well, it shouldn't be hard for a normal grownup, but it sure seems like it is for a lot of people. Or perhaps the real issue is not how hard it is, but that there is no demand for that type of journalism, so the market doesn't produce it.
mnd999 7y ago
Why would you expect balance? With the possible exception of the Independent which tries, no British newspaper is attempting balance - they’re all opinionated.
- furgooswft13 7y ago
  I would settle for a little self-awareness.

While I enjoy reading some of the political reporting on Brexit on the guardian, they are amongst the least balanced newspapers on general societal and cultural issues.

gameswithgo 7y ago

what does balanced mean to people who comment on the lack of balance in the news? giving equal weight and time to all viewpoints? that seems to be a crazy thing to expect since soke viewpoints are totally bonkers (example: flat earthers). perhaps a better way to critique would be to specify exactly what viewpoint you feel is being ignored or treated unfairly and justify that claim. otherwise “not balanced” comes across like a thought terminating meme, with no information attached.

high_derivative 7y ago
It means they have fully subscribed to an intersectional victim culture that is obsessed with race, identity and oppression. It means giving platform to e.g. journalists inciting personal campaigns against e.g. Tim Hunt or whoever is the wrong-thinker of the hour. Outrage sells so this is a rational strategy for them, it is just surprising they have a better reputation than, say, Fox News.
coldtea 7y ago
>what does balanced mean to people who comment on the lack of balance in the news? giving equal weight and time to all viewpoints? Covering all _major_ viewpoints with decency, and not demonizing the ones they disagree with. Here's a trick impartial outlets use all the time, for example: a favorite politician is presented in nice flattering photographs, a politician they don't like is presented in unflattering photographs, selected to make them look evil, etc. (Now extend this to coverage of their actions inside the articles).
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  Right, so what constitutes a major viewpoint? Let's say that a popular politician believes that vaccines cause autism. In order to be impartial, does the news outlet now have to give equal weight to people who believe in a lie? Or what if what the majority believes is actually abhorrent? Like for example, let's say the majority believe (or choose to simply ignore) that it's a good thing to put a bunch of ethnic minorities in concentration camps. Whether it's due to propaganda or threats from the government. In this hypothetical example, let's call these people Uyghurs. Is the impartial outlet supposed to give equal consideration to both sides? Maybe bring up a few positives of concentration camps?
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Let's say that a popular politician believes that vaccines cause autism. In order to be impartial, does the news outlet now have to give equal weight to people who believe in a lie? The political matters news outlets cover are not confined to scientific issues (like vaccines) that can be settled by some expert consensus. They can dismiss such claims easily, and those are not the point anyway. Nor are most political issues as clear cut as putting minorities in "concentration camps" -- that's a contrived example, making sound like anything not approved by the Guardian amounts to Hitler (or, in this case, Chinese state oppression -- though even this story might have more nuance than what we're getting). The most important political issues cannot be classified as "a lie", they are just different ways of thinking of what's good, beneficial, important short or long term, etc. And of course, different interests, to different segments of the population, or to different countries, cultures, etc. Examples? The arguments pro or against social democracy or liberalism. The arguments pro or against immigration. Or pro or against EU governance. Or pro or against certain fiscal policies. Or pro or against surveillance. Or pro or against privacy. Or pro or against this or that war or intervention or enemy du jour. Or pro or against this or that technology. Or pro or against this or that education reform. Or pro or against Assange. And so on... Yet those nuanced things are still presented as one side is the "good side" and the other is either evil or deluded or a liar.
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      There is zero website, news team or otherwise that adheres to your nigh-impossible lofty ideals of 'neutrality'. Every single site is going to have some bias in one direction or another. For example, EFF is obviously going to be biased against anything that takes away privacy. The Guardian is going to be more left leaning than The Daily Mail and so forth. Can you name me a single example of a website behaving according to the rules that you've laid down?
dominotw 7y ago
> example: flat earthers why did you do this. Saying earth is flat is not an "example" equivalent to saying immigration hurts me and my family.
klagermkii 7y ago
When I say "balanced news", I don't mind if the media has a clear bias on a topic which shines through. It's fine if there is a right side, and they come down firmly on that side. The issue comes when it feels like they're leaving out information or a perspective which would be harmful to their case. Basically if I read something in the news and after reading it I felt like the story made it look like one side was obviously correct, but then I go and look up more sources or more information and I will feel like there's a lot more nuance to it or my opinion even reverses, then I feel like there's been a huge failure in the media and I call that "not balanced". It feels like they strawman the opinions they disagree with while pulling in the best representatives and sources for the positions they agree with.
BurningFrog 7y ago
> what does balanced mean to people who comment on the lack of balance in the news? If this is an honest question, does that mean you don't actually know? It's not that hard. Just find out and present the facts even handedly. Make an attempt at see things from the different perspectives. Well, it shouldn't be hard for a normal grownup, but it sure seems like it is for a lot of people. Or perhaps the real issue is not how hard it is, but that there is no demand for that type of journalism, so the market doesn't produce it.

mnd999 7y ago

Why would you expect balance? With the possible exception of the Independent which tries, no British newspaper is attempting balance - they’re all opinionated.

furgooswft13 7y ago
I would settle for a little self-awareness.